Saturday, September 27, 2008 Due process By Dominador A. Almirante Labor case digest
RESPONDENT Eleazar Gran was deployed by petitioner EDI to work for OAB in Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for the position of computer specialist. After working for about five months, his services were terminated for, among others, incompetence because he had insufficient knowledge in programming and zero knowledge of ACAD System.
To the claim of Gran that he was not afforded due process before dismissal, EDI countered that he was, since he was allowed to work and improve his capabilities for five months prior to his dismissal. Did this defense prosper?
Ruling: No.
A careful examination of the records revealed that, indeed, OAB’s manner of dismissing Gran fell short of the two notice requirement. While it furnished Gran the written notice informing him of his dismissal, it failed to furnish him the written notice apprising him of the charges against him, as prescribed by the Labor Code. Consequently, he was denied the opportunity to respond to said notice.
In addition, OAB did not schedule a hearing or conference with Gran to defend himself and adduce evidence in support of his defenses. Moreover, the July 9, 1994 termination letter was effective on the same day. This shows that OAB had already condemned Gran to dismissal, even before he was furnished a termination letter.
It should also be pointed out that OAB failed to give Gran the chance to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of a representative in accordance with Article 277 of the Labor Code. Clearly, there was no intention ot provide Gran with due process.
Summing up, Gran was notified and his employment arbitrarily terminated on the same day, through the same letter, and for unjustified grounds. Obviously, Gran was not afforded due process. (EDI-Staffbuilders International Inc. versus NLRC, G.R. 145587, Oct. 26, 2007)
